News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An intro to Zig's integer casting for C programmers by pjmlp on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @10:04AM (#27118240)
Ariane 5 error was caused by the remaining 30% programming errors when we leave out the 70% of software failures caused by C typical errors.

So yes, it is quite worthy to reduce the amount of money spent in verification, testing, tooling and culture.

The alternative is to just give up that programmers will never learn and just force verification at hardware level, like Google is doing on Android.

"Memory Tagging for the Kernel: Tag-Based KASAN"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Rm7JFsJGI

Oracle on Solaris SPARC,

https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E61059/gqajs.html

Apple on iOS,

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/preparing...

Microsoft on Azure Sphere,

https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-...

Re:An intro to Zig's integer casting for C programmers by messe on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @10:31AM (#27118534)
Ironically enough, I recall reading that if the overflow hadn't triggered a hardware exception and instead was silently ignored, the first stage would have survived; the code in question had just been carried over from Ariane 4 and was no longer important for the operation of the booster..
Re:An intro to Zig's integer casting for C programmers by vlovich123 on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @10:41AM (#27118652)
That’s not an alternative to memory safety. That’s just a basic security measure even if you write everything in a safe language like Rust or Zig (let alone the fact that you have enormous C/C++ legacy codebases that are likely still seeing ongoing development due to switching costs). The reason is you will always have some amount of unsafe code when dealing with the hardware and this is a hardening measure to protect against slipups.